ReviewAnnals of translational medicine2025
Transforming pulmonary care with applications of endobronchial valves beyond emphysema: a narrative review.
Review in Annals of translational medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Endobronchial valves placement for persistent air leaks in critically ill patients: chest tube removal and competing risk of death.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: Endobronchial one‑way valves (EBVs) were originally developed for lung volume reduction in severe emphysema. Because EBVs allow unidirectional airflow, they have been used off‑label to manage persistent air leaks (PALs)/bronchopleural fistulas (BPFs), haemoptysis, cavitary tuberculosis (TB), and other complex pulmonary conditions. This review summarises the evidence of endobronchial valve applications beyond emphysema. Methods: We conducted a narrative review of English‑language literature from January 1, 2000 to August 1, 2025, searching PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar for clinical trials, observational studies, case series, and case reports describing EBV use beyond emphysema. The selection of articles was based on relevance to the topic, with emphasis on clinical outcomes. No formal quantitative synthesis was performed given the narrative scope. Key Content and Findings: Across case series, EBV placement achieves cessation or substantial reduction of air leaks in roughly half to 80% of patients with postoperative or spontaneous BPFs, often allowing chest tube removal within days and avoiding reoperation. Reported complications are uncommon and include valve migration, expectoration, transient hypoxaemia, and localized infection. Case reports indicate EBVs can serve as emergency bronchoscopic plugs to control massive haemoptysis when conventional therapy fails. Emerging evidence in multidrug‑resistant TB shows that collapse therapy using EBVs alongside appropriate chemotherapy accelerates sputum culture conversion and cavity closure; in a randomized trial, EBV treatment markedly improved culture conversion and long‑term cure rates compared with chemotherapy alone. EBVs have also been used in critical care settings to isolate injured lungs and facilitate weaning from mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Conclusions: EBVs have evolved into a versatile tool in pulmonary medicine, extending well beyond emphysema treatment. The literature to date indicates that EBVs can effectively seal PALs, control focal pulmonary haemorrhage, and induce therapeutic lung collapse in cavitary disease-all with a minimally invasive approach. EBVs hold significant promise for improving patient care in challenging scenarios, and further research is warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.